Game Over? Not Really. The Time has Come to Investigate the Perpatrators of the Russia Hoax

This morning's press conference with Attorney General Bill Barr, as he released the redacted report of the Mueller investigation to Congress, came and went without a single surprise for any well-informed person with critical thinking skills.

If you followed the attempt of Obama Administration officials to sabotage and overturn the 2016 presidential election from its very beginning in the summer of 2016 — while using expert and professional sources of news as reported by alternative media — then you already knew that there was no collusion between this President and the Russian government. Even before the inauguration in February 2017 — based on the only available physical evidence of this event — you already knew that:

The DNC emails that were published by Wikileaks were not hacked by the Russians or anyone else.

You already knew that those emails were copied to portable media from inside the headquarters of the DNC.

You already knew that the copied emails were given to a former Britich Ambassador, who carried them to London and passed them to Wikileaks.

You already knew that there is no physical evidence of the spurious charges of hacking made against the Russian government.

You already knew that if such evidence existed, then the NSA would definitely have captured it. And, they can not produce it.

You already knew that CrowdStrike is a government contractor that destroyed the log files of the DNC server that was allegedly hacked, and has no evidence to back their fantasy misinformation about Russian hackers released to the public.

You already knew that CrowdStrike misinformation was the sole "evidence" that co-conspirators in the Intelligence Community based their Russian Election Meddling assessment on — as the disclaimer within the assessment clearly states.

You already knew that the Intelligence Community was illegally spying on the Trump campaign in summer 2016 without search warrants, and were unable to come up with any evidence of collusion with Russia.

You already knew that the Intelligence conspirators then used myriad falsified evidence — partly paid for by the DNC — to obtain a FISA search warrant in late September 2016 to cover their crimes in the event that Clinton lost.

You already knew that the Poisoned Tree where all subsequent evidence and allegations would come from, is still in place right now. Waiting to be exposed.

So, it will come as no surprise to you that two years of aggressive and expensive investigation into this matter has resulted in the fact that:

President Donald Trump did NOT collude with Russia. No American colluded with Russia, including Roger Stone.

President Trump did not obstruct justice in this investigation. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, he was more transparent and cooperative than any President before him undergoing similar investigations. Furthermore, President Trump and his legal team requested that today's report be sent to Congress without any retractions from the White House.

So, what comes next? Congress will immediately put on a months-long ShitShow, as only they can do. It will be a desperate and embarrassing waste of time and it will amount to absolutely nothing whatsoever. I'll skip the details, the highlights, and the ultimate failures because you already know what that looks like.

But this is by no means over. Not even for a minute.

It is time to investigate and prosecute those members of the Federal government who foisted this HOAX on the American People through unconstitutional criminal action — and they almost got away with it. We already knew, since the end of 2016, who most of the perpetrators are. Now we know who they all are. President Trump is onboard with this plan, and he has the evidence in his top drawer.

The costs of this unprecedented criminal conspiracy to this nation and its People have been enormous and permanently damaging.
.
______________________

Comments

@Unabashed Liberal
made several (I think about 8) criminal referrals to the DOJ. He says it is up to DOJ to work on these, and he refused yesterday (or the day before) to disclose the people to the Fox interviewer (which I think is the right thing to do - not disclose until an appropriate time, maybe after a grand jury indictment??).

that he'll review info about some of the FBI methods surrounding surveillance of DT, etc.

However, Lindsey Graham declared a couple weeks ago that he would also lead an investigation into the methods that the Intel Community employed initially, when the entire idea of conducting surveillance of the Trump campaign, first arose.

I think it's within his purview as the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's also going to look into the validity of having had a FISA warrant issued based upon the so-called Steele Dossier.

Frankly, I don't mind if he (Graham) does. He, and other Repubs have made accusations for quite some time, that the FISA warrants weren't issued based on factual evidence (or, that the presiding Judge didn't know that some of the evidence was paid for by the Clinton campaign)--so, they should have to "put up, or, shut up." (IMO)

Hey, good to see you.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

Really, something like this needs an entire Commission. From what I know about it, it's very unclean and reaches deep into the US political system, including judicial. Congress, for the most part, seems to be utterly clueless. They're like temps. How is that possible? I guess that's why they call it Deep State.

that he'll review info about some of the FBI methods surrounding surveillance of DT, etc.

However, Lindsey Graham declared a couple weeks ago that he would also lead an investigation into the methods that the Intel Community employed initially, when the entire idea of conducting surveillance of the Trump campaign, first arose.

I think it's within his purview as the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's also going to look into the validity of having had a FISA warrant issued based upon the so-called Steele Dossier.

Frankly, I don't mind if he (Graham) does. He, and other Repubs have made accusations for quite some time, that the FISA warrants weren't issued based on factual evidence (or, that the presiding Judge didn't know that some of the evidence was paid for by the Clinton campaign)--so, they should have to "put up, or, shut up." (IMO)

Hey, good to see you.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

up

0 users have voted.

—

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

— Martin Luther King

He's busy doing everything that the master class has wanted done for a very long time. People say that McConnell won't do anything to upset Trump's base, but he's actually more interested in not upsetting Trump's donors and the people who are really pulling his strings.
This saga is great for distracting people from the real issues affecting the country. One look at the wreckage list on ToP for the last two years shows that. No one covers any of the more serious problems facing us because their noses are sniffing out everything regarding Russia, Trump's actions and other silly stuff.

Nancy knows that there are real issues that she could use to try to impeach him, but since congress is just as guilty she won't. The emoluments clause is out now too since the DOJ has said that it's okay for people involved government as long as it just helps their personal businesses.

But sadly this saga is a long way from over. And as long as so many people believe that Russia put Trump's buttocks in office this distraction is going to continue.

I think it may be a good thing. If Dems actually bring impeachment charges, I believe it will be viewed as overreach, and 'sour grapes' by the majority of the populace, and, just maybe a true radical lefty Party will rise out of the ash heap, in place of the corporatist Dem Party.

At any rate, I figure that Graham will be pressured by the RINOs to not investigate the Deep State actors--the Intel Community/FSC/BO/DNC, etc.--who are most responsible for instigating this fiasco. IOW, I'm 'guessing' that the purple state Repubs will tell him and Gowdy to 'move on.'

Time will tell.

[Edited: Deleted redundant phrase - "it might be a good thing".]

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

Secondly, if Dems weren't worried, they wouldn't be running 2-3 candidates representing almost every special interest group that comprises the Party. It's clear that most of the candidates "don't have a snowball's chance in h*ll" to win--so, it must indicate a high degree of concern and/or desperation within the Dem Party Caucus/Leadership.

To top it off, it's being done in spite of the Dems knowing that the MSM is in their hip pocket--practically, an extension of their Party.

Further, it may also depend upon what Graham does. I could be wrong, but, from watching the concern that has started setting in (with the MSM) now that Graham's declared he'll start his investigation into the FISA warrants, etc., I'm wondering if Dems might already be backed into a corner, and have to do it, in hopes that it will stall, or stop, Repubs' investigatory efforts.

Think about it--if the Repubs are correct (and I don't know if they are) that there were major violations regarding the FISA warrants, etc., and they can prove it--some major players may be taken down, including Dems.

(Remember, there's a claim that 'O' ordered the counter-intel investigation of DT and his campaign, in the first place--with the help of Susan Rice, and others. Dunno if that's true, BTW, since I don't follow this topic super closely.)

Anyhoo, I definitely agree that it would be political suicide for ol' Nancy to give in to the more ardent activists in the Party Base, who are clamoring for DT's head on a platter. But, she's proven that she'll do about anything she has to, in order to protect, or maintain, her 'power.'

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me if she does go along with impeachment proceedings. The backlash would be likely be substantial, and, just maybe, we'd be rid of corporatist Dems--for good!

Hey, one can always hope . . .

Have a good one!

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

He's busy doing everything that the master class has wanted done for a very long time. People say that McConnell won't do anything to upset Trump's base, but he's actually more interested in not upsetting Trump's donors and the people who are really pulling his strings.
This saga is great for distracting people from the real issues affecting the country. One look at the wreckage list on ToP for the last two years shows that. No one covers any of the more serious problems facing us because their noses are sniffing out everything regarding Russia, Trump's actions and other silly stuff.

Nancy knows that there are real issues that she could use to try to impeach him, but since congress is just as guilty she won't. The emoluments clause is out now too since the DOJ has said that it's okay for people involved government as long as it just helps their personal businesses.

@Unabashed Liberal@Unabashed Liberal
just saw one of the headlines on my homepage this morning. Something about AOC continuing to push for impeachment. I wonder how her “progressive” friend Nancy feels about that? Of course I also wonder how a first term “outsider” congresswoman gets so much front page press. Wonders never cease, do they?

Secondly, if Dems weren't worried, they wouldn't be running 2-3 candidates representing almost every special interest group that comprises the Party. It's clear that most of the candidates "don't have a snowball's chance in h*ll" to win--so, it must indicate a high degree of concern and/or desperation within the Dem Party Caucus/Leadership.

To top it off, it's being done in spite of the Dems knowing that the MSM is in their hip pocket--practically, an extension of their Party.

Further, it may also depend upon what Graham does. I could be wrong, but, from watching the concern that has started setting in (with the MSM) now that Graham's declared he'll start his investigation into the FISA warrants, etc., I'm wondering if Dems might already be backed into a corner, and have to do it, in hopes that it will stall, or stop, Repubs' investigatory efforts.

Think about it--if the Repubs are correct (and I don't know if they are) that there were major violations regarding the FISA warrants, etc., and they can prove it--some major players may be taken down, including Dems.

(Remember, there's a claim that 'O' ordered the counter-intel investigation of DT and his campaign, in the first place--with the help of Susan Rice, and others. Dunno if that's true, BTW, since I don't follow this topic super closely.)

Anyhoo, I definitely agree that it would be political suicide for ol' Nancy to give in to the more ardent activists in the Party Base, who are clamoring for DT's head on a platter. But, she's proven that she'll do about anything she has to, in order to protect, or maintain, her 'power.'

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me if she does go along with impeachment proceedings. The backlash would be likely be substantial, and, just maybe, we'd be rid of corporatist Dems--for good!

Hey, one can always hope . . .

Have a good one!

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

But sadly this saga is a long way from over. And as long as so many people believe that Russia put Trump's buttocks in office this distraction is going to continue.

I think it may be a good thing. If Dems actually bring impeachment charges, I believe it will be viewed as overreach, and 'sour grapes' by the majority of the populace, and, just maybe a true radical lefty Party will rise out of the ash heap, in place of the corporatist Dem Party.

At any rate, I figure that Graham will be pressured by the RINOs to not investigate the Deep State actors--the Intel Community/FSC/BO/DNC, etc.--who are most responsible for instigating this fiasco. IOW, I'm 'guessing' that the purple state Repubs will tell him and Gowdy to 'move on.'

Time will tell.

[Edited: Deleted redundant phrase - "it might be a good thing".]

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

...@snoopydawg
, as far as I'm concerned. It's like looking at entrails to read the future.

EH? He either obstructed justice or he did not. If you can't say that he did then I would think that means he did not. Isn't this an either or question? I am either guilty or not guilty. Seems like we are having shades of Fitzmas here. Too much sand kicked on home plate to see what happened.

Is this your comment, or an import? I do know people are tripping over obstruction. But the process is clear. Any new evidence can be presented to the Attorney General to see if it comes up to the standard of obstruction. As long as Barr is AG, the evidence in Mueller's report is a no go.

You did a lot of the heavy lifting around here, so thanks, Dawg.

PS: I don't think Pelosi will allow impeachment to even be discussed.

It's more than obvious that Barr whitewashed the Mueller report and he is covering up for Trump. Oh I wish that I was kidding, but here's a few tidbits from the insane asylum:

Now, just more than two months later, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and Robert Mueller himself is nowhere to be seen

Attorney General William Barr lied to the American people about Robert Mueller's reasoning for not making a criminal finding of obstruction of justice against Donald Trump

However, Mueller also concluded he couldn't clear Trump of obstructing justice based on the evidence they uncovered.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," Mueller wrote. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

EH? He either obstructed justice or he did not. If you can't say that he did then I would think that means he did not. Isn't this an either or question? I am either guilty or not guilty. Seems like we are having shades of Fitzmas here. Too much sand kicked on home plate to see what happened.

In case people have forgotten, after Starr released his pornographic report on Clinton a law was passed that made it impossible for the full report on presidents to be released to the public. Barr with Mueller's help has been redacting what they had to. Oh NOES!!! Cosnpiracy!!

You'd think a member of congress would know that.

Every member of Congress needs to see the whole, unredacted report along with all underlying materials. And the materials must be provided to Congress so that members and staff can review them and provide a check on the abuse of the redaction process.

There is so much more of this type of nonsense that I could go on all week filling this box, but the sun is finally out and the dawgs want to walk finally this week and I need to mow the lawn.
But sadly this saga is a long way from over. And as long as so many people believe that Russia put Trump's buttocks in office this distraction is going to continue. Pluto you did a great job showing how this was totally made up from the gitgo as well as everyone here that have written numerous essays debunking every single point of this as new info came out.

Tah

up

0 users have voted.

—

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

— Martin Luther King

Essentially, Mueller is trying to move the goal posts on the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, a rather important concept until the dems and femi-nazis decided to do away it during the SC court hearings and me-too stories. (Yeah, I used the word femi-nazis, because that is exactly what they are - how dare they mess with "innocent until proven guilty").

As Giuliani says, he has never heard of the legal standard that Mueller used in his report.

...#16, as far as I'm concerned. It's like looking at entrails to read the future.

EH? He either obstructed justice or he did not. If you can't say that he did then I would think that means he did not. Isn't this an either or question? I am either guilty or not guilty. Seems like we are having shades of Fitzmas here. Too much sand kicked on home plate to see what happened.

Is this your comment, or an import? I do know people are tripping over obstruction. But the process is clear. Any new evidence can be presented to the Attorney General to see if it comes up to the standard of obstruction. As long as Barr is AG, the evidence in Mueller's report is a no go.

This is my comment and I'm relying on an article I read that said either a crime has been committed or it hasn't. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but Mueller had to decide if one was committed. I don't think he could say one was because we know how many times the FBI tried to entrap him.

There wouldn't have been a Trump tower meeting if Obama's state department hadn't fixed the Russian lawyer's passport and if Fusion GPS hadn't set it up.

Lots of people here have done a great job of writing essays about the various parts of this saga. I suggested once posting an essay with all the links, but realized I don't have the time or energy to do it because there has been so many.

People can look at yours, mine and gulfgal's essays in the archives to see how well we've documented this. I'm sure I'm leaving some names off the list and I'm sorry. Peak up if you remember who else did.

I'm still pleased about how people here never drank the Russian Koop aid!

...#16, as far as I'm concerned. It's like looking at entrails to read the future.

EH? He either obstructed justice or he did not. If you can't say that he did then I would think that means he did not. Isn't this an either or question? I am either guilty or not guilty. Seems like we are having shades of Fitzmas here. Too much sand kicked on home plate to see what happened.

Is this your comment, or an import? I do know people are tripping over obstruction. But the process is clear. Any new evidence can be presented to the Attorney General to see if it comes up to the standard of obstruction. As long as Barr is AG, the evidence in Mueller's report is a no go.

You did a lot of the heavy lifting around here, so thanks, Dawg.

PS: I don't think Pelosi will allow impeachment to even be discussed.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

She said something about what she read in the Mueller report yesterday and I wanted to ask how she read it since it hasn't been released yet? But I like watching what she writes so I don't reply often because she would block me.

Hey, I'm surprised that Armando hadn't yet. I've been a little stinker in some of my replies to him. I only said one thing to another person from DK and got blocked. I was sad....

pluto. because like the bible, marcy wheeler tells me so. what are you, some kinda commie or revisionist or something?

(srsly, though; well done, upside-down pluto amigo.)

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

She said something about what she read in the Mueller report yesterday and I wanted to ask how she read it since it hasn't been released yet? But I like watching what she writes so I don't reply often because she would block me.

Hey, I'm surprised that Armando hadn't yet. I've been a little stinker in some of my replies to him. I only said one thing to another person from DK and got blocked. I was sad....

The investigation identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and the Campaign expected it would benefit from information stolen and released by the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that member of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

We can thank Comey and Warner for killing the deal with Assange that might have debunked the fact that Russia hacked the DNC computers and gave them to Wikileaks. Another thing that people should be asking if Mueller believes that Russia hacked them is where is the proof and if he thinks they gave it to Wikileaks then why didn't Mueller interview Assange or anyone else from Wikileaks? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know why he did a half assed investigation. Or why no one has asked Comey why the FBI did not look at the computers if they are going to make a definitive statement that Russia did the deed?

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

If so, it doesn't seem like much of a deal. Only some discussion about possibly starting talks. And I don't see anything in there where there's any suggestion that Assange will reveal his sources much less anything amounting to some kind of plea deal.

So what is really known?

A few more:

The investigation identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and the Campaign expected it would benefit from information stolen and released by the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that member of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

We can thank Comey and Warner for killing the deal with Assange that might have debunked the fact that Russia hacked the DNC computers and gave them to Wikileaks. Another thing that people should be asking if Mueller believes that Russia hacked them is where is the proof and if he thinks they gave it to Wikileaks then why didn't Mueller interview Assange or anyone else from Wikileaks? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know why he did a half assed investigation. Or why no one has asked Comey why the FBI did not look at the computers if they are going to make a definitive statement that Russia did the deed?

His mistake was getting involved with the Steele dossier, and then using it to get a FISA warrant.

A few more:

The investigation identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and the Campaign expected it would benefit from information stolen and released by the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that member of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

We can thank Comey and Warner for killing the deal with Assange that might have debunked the fact that Russia hacked the DNC computers and gave them to Wikileaks. Another thing that people should be asking if Mueller believes that Russia hacked them is where is the proof and if he thinks they gave it to Wikileaks then why didn't Mueller interview Assange or anyone else from Wikileaks? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know why he did a half assed investigation. Or why no one has asked Comey why the FBI did not look at the computers if they are going to make a definitive statement that Russia did the deed?

up

0 users have voted.

—

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

— Martin Luther King

From what I've read, he was interviewed by Trump for the top FBI position. Then he shortly thereafter accepted the position of special counsel. So, the writer concluded that this was a conflict of interest.

They have a mix of reporters/commenters (but mostly conservative) who are pro and anti Trump.

It was Fox news reporters, John Solomon, Sara Carter, and Kathleen Herridge who did the heavy lifting and research in the beginning that ultimately led commenters like Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham to conclude that the Mueller thing was a hoax.

But Judge Nap is mostly pro-hoax and Chris Wallace is kind of a mixed bag.

A few more:

The investigation identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and the Campaign expected it would benefit from information stolen and released by the Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that member of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

We can thank Comey and Warner for killing the deal with Assange that might have debunked the fact that Russia hacked the DNC computers and gave them to Wikileaks. Another thing that people should be asking if Mueller believes that Russia hacked them is where is the proof and if he thinks they gave it to Wikileaks then why didn't Mueller interview Assange or anyone else from Wikileaks? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know why he did a half assed investigation. Or why no one has asked Comey why the FBI did not look at the computers if they are going to make a definitive statement that Russia did the deed?

It gives people the impression that yes indeed Russia interfered with the election and that is what people are going to continue to believe. So even though Trump didn't collude with Vlad people still believe the first part. If Fox News posts something like that it's not without the top dudes approving it.

They have a mix of reporters/commenters (but mostly conservative) who are pro and anti Trump.

It was Fox news reporters, John Solomon, Sara Carter, and Kathleen Herridge who did the heavy lifting and research in the beginning that ultimately led commenters like Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham to conclude that the Mueller thing was a hoax.

But Judge Nap is mostly pro-hoax and Chris Wallace is kind of a mixed bag.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!” - Joe Biden

@snoopydawg
top dudes do and how much they intervene with programming.

I can say that I go to the Fox news website daily - usually several times, and what you presented is not representative of the entirety.

In fact, I've been off and on the website quite a bit today, and I have not seen what you posted. I'm not saying it is not there, it's just not what I've seen when I pull up the website. But I can see links to articles that are critical of Trump, so maybe it is now buried there.

It gives people the impression that yes indeed Russia interfered with the election and that is what people are going to continue to believe. So even though Trump didn't collude with Vlad people still believe the first part. If Fox News posts something like that it's not without the top dudes approving it.

It gives people the impression that yes indeed Russia interfered with the election and that is what people are going to continue to believe. So even though Trump didn't collude with Vlad people still believe the first part. If Fox News posts something like that it's not without the top dudes approving it.

from wsws this morning: ‘US preparing more charges against Julian Assange’

“On Wednesday, CNN reported US federal prosecutors confirmed there is an “ongoing criminal investigation” of Julian Assange, the 47-year-old founder of WikiLeaks. Prosecutors also indicated “affiliates” of Assange are under investigation, this according to another newly unsealed document. According to the CNN report, at least one document related to this investigation has been withheld from the public due to “ongoing activity.”
The revelation, CNN reported, “confirms CNN and other news outlets’ reporting in recent days that WikiLeaks is connected to at least one probe that could result in more criminal charges.”

“But since Assange has been imprisoned in the maximum-security Belmarsh prison, public comments made by leading Democrats and US media officials indicate that charge was not the primary aim of the US investigation.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “Now that Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.” Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel tweeted that Assange “time after time compromised the national security of the United States and our allies by publicly releasing classified government documents and confidential materials related to our 2016 presidential election.”

from ccn on april 17, 2019 ‘Omissions in Assange case and ongoing investigations signal broader charges to come’

"“Washington(CNN) Julian Assange faced a single criminal charge when he was pulled from the Ecuadorian embassy in London last week -- but, according to a CNN review of court records [whatever that means], prosecutors have already given a roadmap about how they may be continuing to investigate WikiLeaks and suggested that more charges are to come.”

“Three ongoing criminal proceedings suggest that the Justice Department continues to target Assange. Two of these are grand jury efforts to obtain testimony from witnesses -- Manning, the Army intelligence agent-turned-leaker who's central to his case, and, separately, former Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller -- who have information about Assange and Wikileaks.

The Justice Department's rules governing grand juries say they can't keep investigating after an indictment is filed, unless they are pursuing additional charges. So far, prosecutors have been coy about why they want Assange and Miller to testify, though the two have in common that they each have info about Assange and Wikileaks.

Assange's indictment was filed more than a year ago, yet a grand jury known to be investigating WikiLeaks continues to sit in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

“On Monday, a federal judge in New York City also noted how a criminal investigation related to yet another alleged WikiLeaks leaker is ongoing.

The case, against former CIA software engineer Joshua Schulte, had originally begun as a child pornography case in August 2017 -- the type that's routinely prosecuted by federal authorities.

But in June 2018, prosecutors added to the charges against Schulte, alleging he illegally gathered classified information from the CIA on his computers with the intent to harm the US. He allegedly sent the info to WikiLeaks -- called "Organization-1" in the court record, which posted the documents. It's known as the "Vault 7" leak.”

...but the usual dumb attempts at entrapment. I know Stone's story, which is utterly banal. He has no connection to Wikileaks. Andrew Miller is just another political dilettante. This doesn't mean that they cannot be completely destroyed via the abuse of government power. But that seems too low-life for Mueller to end his case with. He should dismiss all these charges and move on with what's left of his intellectual dignity.

The spooks are obviously doubling down again on their Russiabation fantasies. Maybe its a temper tantrum, or maybe they're trying to pound life back into their ridiculously-easy-to-debunk narrative. They will keep doing that until they are dead, as if someone cared about their creepy legacy. They are not even footnotes to history. They came to earth, produced a lot of methane, and soon they'll be gone, having accomplished nothing worth remembering.

I'm not going to consider Assange in this context. I need to protect myself from trauma. It's a full time job, pretty much.

this will tie into the mueller investigation eventually, i promise.

from wsws this morning: ‘US preparing more charges against Julian Assange’

“On Wednesday, CNN reported US federal prosecutors confirmed there is an “ongoing criminal investigation” of Julian Assange, the 47-year-old founder of WikiLeaks. Prosecutors also indicated “affiliates” of Assange are under investigation, this according to another newly unsealed document. According to the CNN report, at least one document related to this investigation has been withheld from the public due to “ongoing activity.”
The revelation, CNN reported, “confirms CNN and other news outlets’ reporting in recent days that WikiLeaks is connected to at least one probe that could result in more criminal charges.”

“But since Assange has been imprisoned in the maximum-security Belmarsh prison, public comments made by leading Democrats and US media officials indicate that charge was not the primary aim of the US investigation.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “Now that Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.” Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel tweeted that Assange “time after time compromised the national security of the United States and our allies by publicly releasing classified government documents and confidential materials related to our 2016 presidential election.”

from ccn on april 17, 2019 ‘Omissions in Assange case and ongoing investigations signal broader charges to come’

"“Washington(CNN) Julian Assange faced a single criminal charge when he was pulled from the Ecuadorian embassy in London last week -- but, according to a CNN review of court records [whatever that means], prosecutors have already given a roadmap about how they may be continuing to investigate WikiLeaks and suggested that more charges are to come.”

“Three ongoing criminal proceedings suggest that the Justice Department continues to target Assange. Two of these are grand jury efforts to obtain testimony from witnesses -- Manning, the Army intelligence agent-turned-leaker who's central to his case, and, separately, former Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller -- who have information about Assange and Wikileaks.

The Justice Department's rules governing grand juries say they can't keep investigating after an indictment is filed, unless they are pursuing additional charges. So far, prosecutors have been coy about why they want Assange and Miller to testify, though the two have in common that they each have info about Assange and Wikileaks.

Assange's indictment was filed more than a year ago, yet a grand jury known to be investigating WikiLeaks continues to sit in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

“On Monday, a federal judge in New York City also noted how a criminal investigation related to yet another alleged WikiLeaks leaker is ongoing.

The case, against former CIA software engineer Joshua Schulte, had originally begun as a child pornography case in August 2017 -- the type that's routinely prosecuted by federal authorities.

But in June 2018, prosecutors added to the charges against Schulte, alleging he illegally gathered classified information from the CIA on his computers with the intent to harm the US. He allegedly sent the info to WikiLeaks -- called "Organization-1" in the court record, which posted the documents. It's known as the "Vault 7" leak.”

...but the usual dumb attempts at entrapment. I know Stone's story, which is utterly banal. He has no connection to Wikileaks. Andrew Miller is just another political dilettante. This doesn't mean that they cannot be completely destroyed via the abuse of government power. But that seems too low-life for Mueller to end his case with. He should dismiss all these charges and move on with what's left of his intellectual dignity.

The spooks are obviously doubling down again on their Russiabation fantasies. Maybe its a temper tantrum, or maybe they're trying to pound life back into their ridiculously-easy-to-debunk narrative. They will keep doing that until they are dead, as if someone cared about their creepy legacy. They are not even footnotes to history. They came to earth, produced a lot of methane, and soon they'll be gone, having accomplished nothing worth remembering.

I'm not going to consider Assange in this context. I need to protect myself from trauma. It's a full time job, pretty much.